|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Communion to unbaptized persons
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
There is a bit of a controversy in my ECUSA diocese (which shall remain nameless; it is more of a tempest in a teapot actually) about folks not respecting the practice of limiting communion only to baptized Christians. Some people see this as an impermissible violation of canon law, while the priests who advocate it apparently feel that the requirement that one be baptized is too stringent a prerequisite. Our bishop is a bit of stickler for canon law (as, I must admit, am I), so I would imagine this will be dealt with rather swiftly.
I must admit to being a bit mystified as to why a clergyperson, assuming he/she knew a person was not baptized, would offer communion to them. It seems to me that the idea of baptism as the manner of entry into the Christian community is so rooted in Christian thought, practice and history as to be practically unquestionable.
Since most shipmates here are from the UK or the Land of Oz, what is the feeling in your corners of the Anglican world? Is it really too restrictive for actual reception of the eucharist to be reserved for baptized individuals? Is there any good theological/ecclesiastical reason to consider a change?
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I've never claimed to be a theologian, but it seems downright ridiculous to insist that an adult presenting themselves at the altar be turned away. They've sat through the explanation of what it is, they obviously want a part of that, who the heck are we to say, "No, you've got it all backwards?"
(Kids are a different matter, and I leave that up to their parents [even though my thinking is quite similar to the Orthodoxen, I've just got no kids to practice on])
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It is a tempest in a teapot. No episcopal priest asks every person presenting themselves for communion if they are baptized or not. I've seen LCMS ushers do it (and they wanted to know if the person presenting believed in the real presence). Many visitors to an episcopal parish are reluctant to take communion even if canonically they would be welcomed.
The canons and the prayer book list baptism as a prerequisite for receiving communion. I took an oath to follow both and intend to do so until they are properly changed. In my opinion, baptism should remain a requirement. Sitting through a service and deciding you want to take communion suggests you should ask to be baptized. A person desiring baptism should have an understanding of what it means to follow Christ before actually making the decision.
As to children, I believe more in the first communion tradition of Roman Catholics than the Orthodox tradition of allowing infants to receive. However, what the Orthodox do is acceptable and parents should be allowed to decide when their children are ready to receive communion. But, if your little one takes the bread and spits it out, please pick it up and swallow it.
A theological reason to change it is that perhaps receiving communion leads to conversion. Baptism may lead to faith or faith lead to baptism. It could be argued that communion could lead to faith which leads to baptism. I find the whole hospitality argument entirely unconvincing. Communion is a sacrament not a pre-coffee hour snack. If you really want to welcome a visitor who happens not to be baptized, offer to take them to lunch after church.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
I really agree with a lot of what you said, Beeswax; I think, though that I should clarify myself.
I would never suggest that the celebrant or the LEMs or anyone should 'fence' the table like they did in reformed churches back in the day. What I am talking about is preserving the traditional manner of entry into the Christian community, at least for adults:
Desire to enter -> Catechumenate/appropriate formation -> Baptism -> Communion
This has been the formula in all places throughout Christian history; the details have varied (in the early church, the catechumenate might last for years) but it has always been the same idea.
Again, I am not talking about keeping the 'unbaptized heathen' away from the altar rail at all costs; I am talking about holding to baptism as a prereq for communion.
As to children, I would go with the Orthodox practice; I generally view 'confirmation' as a sacrament searching for a theology.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Receiving communion before receiving baptism, in most Christian traditions would be seen to be putting the cart before the horse. Some evangelical traditions practising an open communion policy state that, "All who love the Lord Jesus, are welcome to come to the Holy Table at the Lord's Supper to partake in the receiving of the sacrament".
In that case, one does not have to be baptised or made any declaration of Christian commitment in order to receive communion. Presumably, those who find themselves in that situation are desirous of being baptised and/or making an act of Christian commitment. It is a situation that might well come out in the wash as they say.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
That was a memorable post, Beeswax Altar, thank you.
My beliefs exactly.
Holy Communion is the food of the Body of Christ, the Christian community.
As horrible as it sounds to some people, it is limited to the baptised, as voting is to citizens, or sex in marriages is limited to spouses.
Most churches in the Anglican Communion are already far more open than most other Christians.
It would be hard to open the doors wider.
I cannot believe offering communion to those who are not baptised would do any more than confuse people. Christianity is about committment to the Saviour and to his body the Church. Communion itself is about BEING that body and our Head feeding his body.
It is the ultimate insiders-only event in the world. But what joy awaits those who come inside!
The baptismal font stands at the door of the Church, one must pass by the font before approaching the altar.
All are welcome, please come for instruction! No one will turn you away!
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
John Wesley stated that Communion was 'a converting ordinance'.
There's a church in San Francisco where an atheist/Marxist/feminist called Sara Miles walked in, off the street, probably to avoid the rain, and received. She was converted by the experience, has written about it and is a strong Christian in her community.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
My post crossed with that of Mama Thomas. The view I expressed above, is one that I don't share, but I was defining another code of practice and no more.
I largly agree with Beeswax Altar and Mama Thomas that it makes sense to go to communion after one has been baptised (and confirmed).
Mama Thomas, there is great symbolism about having the font placed just inside the church door to mark one's entry into the church. But that positioning in the church-building is not sacrosanct and may be impractical for baptismal rites before a large congregation. That is why many churches have the font at the front of the nave, in or near the sanctuary.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
John Wesley stated that Communion was 'a converting ordinance'.
Shoot, thanks. I knew I was taught something about that, but couldn't remember where in my ecclesiastical perambulations. Apparently, it was Methodist confirmation class.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a church in San Francisco where an atheist/Marxist/feminist called Sara Miles walked in, off the street, probably to avoid the rain, and received. She was converted by the experience, has written about it and is a strong Christian in her community.
Which I feel is a very strong argument for the practice. When others learn the church was St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, though, they sometimes dismiss it. Which makes me want to throw her book in their general direction.
A great interview with her is available online for free here. But this is what I believe is an operative quote for this discussion:
quote:
I think the most important thing for me about St. Gregory's is the practice and the theology of open Communion, which says basically that the altar does not belong to the church. The altar is God's, and everybody is welcome. It is not up to the church to say, "You don't deserve Communion, because you're not baptized or you're gay or you're divorced or you're a child." The church doesn't own Communion. It's God's meal.
[ 15. September 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
John Wesley stated that Communion was 'a converting ordinance'.
There's a church in San Francisco where an atheist/Marxist/feminist called Sara Miles walked in, off the street, probably to avoid the rain, and received. She was converted by the experience, has written about it and is a strong Christian in her community.
I wonder if that's what Wesley meant by that phrase, though? The usual early Methodist method was Bible class and, having had your card marked as a regular attender, communion. Weekly, I believe, so important did they consider the Lord's Supper. Also, I'm guessing that very few people in Wesley's time would've been unbaptized, in the ordinary way of things.
So I'm inclined to think the Wesley's attitude towards offering communion willy-nilly to the unbaptized might have followed the more orthodox view. But I could be wrong.
My own view, as it happens is fairly orthodox. But I don't think I'd faint with shock if I realized I'd communicated an unbaptized person - as I must've done any number of times since ordination, as I don't quiz people who present themselves to receive!
I also know someone who was brought to Christ by receiving communion. I don't actually know if she was baptized; but undoubtedly it was a 'converting ordnance' in that circumstance.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
I think the most important thing for me about St. Gregory's is the practice and the theology of open Communion, which says basically that the altar does not belong to the church. The altar is God's, and everybody is welcome. It is not up to the church to say, "You don't deserve Communion, because you're not baptized or you're gay or you're divorced or you're a child." The church doesn't own Communion. It's God's meal.
I expect I'm doing injustice to the person who made this quote, but if we believe that the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, it's actually quite difficult to come to the conclusion that communion doesn't belong to the Church. It's the central communal sacrament/meal around which the Body of Christ, the Church, focuses; how it understands itself, feeds itself upon Christ, whose Body the Church is.
I think, however, it is perfectly justified to challenge the institutionalization of many processes pertaining to the Body of Christ, which may be more what the writer means, in this case. The Church should be careful, perhaps, not to submit itself to the institutionalization of itself to the extent of permitting itself no creative or radical reformation, as and when the Spirit moves.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
I also know someone who was brought to Christ by receiving communion. I don't actually know if she was baptized; but undoubtedly it was a 'converting ordnance' in that circumstance.
While I am not sure if its here or there, I would imagine that the reference to the Lord's Supper as a converting ordinance refers to the fact that, since conversion is not a one-time thing, it is the Eucharist that continually reconverts or regenerates the people who receive it. I find it hard to believe that Wesley would have been suggesting that offering communion to everyone and their dog, regardless of their baptismal status, was a good and profitable thing.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
In the United States, the United Methodist church has an explicit policy of inviting everyone present to partake.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I wonder if that's what Wesley meant by that phrase, though?
Good point. I looked into this and found:
It is not only for those who already believe and long to deepen their relationship with the Lord, but for those who truly want to believe, but seem to lack the grace to do so. I believe Wesley's view was biblically sound. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/covenant/means.htm
BUT also:
The signs transmit the signified,
The grace is by the means applied.
Wesley went so far as to claim the Lord's Supper as a converting ordinance. He appealed to the experience of his converts: “Ye are witnesses. For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God (perhaps in some, the first deep conviction) was wrought at the Lord's Supper.” Had not his own mother, after wandering in a “legal wilderness” most of her life, knelt at the Table, and
The Father there revealed His Son,
Him in the broken bread made known.
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/history/wesley/iss_history_wesley_leatham-years-1.asp
John Wesley's mention of the sacrament as "a converting ordinance" is subject to misunderstanding by some United Methodists today. In Wesley's time and situation, he was addressing persons who, although baptized as infants and possessing some degree of faith, had not yet
experienced spiritual rebirth. In eighteenth century England, almost all persons were baptized in infancy. Therefore, the conversion Wesley
spoke of was a transformation of those already baptized."
http://www.jimlane.org/A-Response-to--This-Holy-Mystery--A-United-Methodist-Understanding-of-Holy-Communion-_19.htm
It should be noted that when people claim that Holy Communion is a converting ordinance they often believe that this idea derives, in the form in which they express it, from the teaching of John Wesley, i.e that it is a proclamation of the Gospel and can elicit a response. However, Wesley's use of the phrase 'a converting ordinance' denoted his belief that someone 'seeking salvation' might find it in Communion. Baptism was none the less for him the condition for presenting oneself at Holy Communion. http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.content&cmid=356
So I was wrong - annoyingly since I like the open table idea.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
As to children, I would go with the Orthodox practice; I generally view 'confirmation' as a sacrament searching for a theology.
Chrismation is bound up with the same theological principles as baptism. One enters the community of faith through baptism and receives the seal of the holy spirit through Chrismation. Bishop Kallistos says the following of Chrismation
Through Chrismation every member of the Church becomes a prophet, and receives a share in the royal priesthood of Christ; all Christians alike, because they are chrismated, are called to act as conscious witnesses to the Truth. 'You have an anointing (chrisma) from the Holy One, and know all things
Chrismation is applied in the Orthodox Church immediately after baptism.
The theology underlying all of this is the ecclesiology of the church, which is all bound together. The Eucharist is the body of Christ which which is constituted visibly and tangibly in the temporal world in the church. The church is a unity of faith, joined together in the sacraments which are guarded by the charism of apostolic succession. The sacraments are linked to one another. Bapstim, Christmation and Confession are all linked to Communion; the last (Confession), so that we do not partake unworthily as is spoken about in 1 Corinthians. To partake in the Eucharist is to affirm belief in all of this and in the words of the creed. "We believe in one holy ..."
I don't want to start a debate, but I will say that when I became aware of open communion it was one of two points that convinced me that any semblance of catholic ecclesiology had been utterly abandoned. It is not a practice that can be viewed in isolation.
[ 15. September 2010, 18:00: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So I was wrong - annoyingly since I like the open table idea.
Me, too! 'Open table' to me says so much of what Jesus was about!
But I think I've come to the conclusion - at least theologically - that it's not a principle to be easily compromised. In practice, however - who knows?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
When I was baptised (where and while I studies at uni) at St Andrews Baptist Church it was the evening, and after being baptised and getting dried and dressed again, that was when I was accepted for communion and membership. We also had a really nice tea and food time after the service.
And before that, when we belonged to Scots Kirk, I did my menbership training/studying with the minister and several others, all of us just about to be leaving school, at Kirk Wynd Parish Kirk and that was when we could come to communion, which only happened two times each year, and we had to bring the note given to us by the elder the week before communion Sunday. And we had to attend at least once in the two years, or we were likely to be taken off the membership list.
So, in neither church/denomination, we had to be baptised to get communion.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
When I was baptised (where and while I studies at uni) at St Andrews Baptist Church it was the evening, and after being baptised and getting dried and dressed again, that was when I was accepted for communion and membership. We also had a really nice tea and food time after the service.
And before that, when we belonged to Scots Kirk, I did my menbership training/studying with the minister and several others, all of us just about to be leaving school, at Kirk Wynd Parish Kirk and that was when we could come to communion, which only happened two times each year, and we had to bring the note given to us by the elder the week before communion Sunday. And we had to attend at least once in the two years, or we were likely to be taken off the membership list.
So, in neither church/denomination, we had to be baptised to get communion.
Well technically you should not have come into membership of the Church of Scotland unless you were baptised. Church membership is sometimes called confirmation because in you confirm the vows your parents made at your baptism. I know of someone similar age to you, who a CofS minister refused to marry because she was not baptised (mix of CofS and Salvation Army background). An individual who is not baptised should be baptised in the same service as they are confirmed in.
From the Church of Scotland's Website:
quote:
While infant baptism is the norm, the Church of Scotland also baptises many who were not baptised as infants. Someone seeking such believer's baptism (also referred to as adult baptism) should approach their local parish minister who will either give specific instruction or invite them to join in the communicants' class. They would then be baptised and confirmed in the same service and have their names added to the communion roll of the congregation.
What will have happened is what happened in England in my fathers case, and at least two others I know of, is that baptism is presumed because is was normative to have a child done and people forget a adult baptising personal history. With no checking some slipped through the net but does not make it official policy.
The Church of Scotland as has other churches in Scotland so far from permitting the unbaptised to come to communion has had the most closely guarded communion table of any tradition.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I had as a baby been treated spiritually what the CofS and other churches, not the baptist ones, call "baptism", in Dundee in a CofS kirk, but which I call now "dedication", and so I was officially able to be a CofS member. It was after I went to uni, that I began to think and believe differently what was baptism.
[ 15. September 2010, 20:27: Message edited by: daisymay ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I assume,however, that the "minister" with whom you did your training, thought that the 'dedication' counted as a Church of Scotland 'baptism'.Otherwise he might have asked you to consider baptism before letting you 'join the church' as they often say in Scotland.
Without 'baptism' with promises made either by your good self or members of your immediate family who loved you so much that they wished to incorporate you at an early age into Christ's church,it would be like 'joining the kirk 'without a membership card.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In my Anglican Church of Canada parish if 1 is baptized you can recive communion. Do they ask are you baptized ? No leave it to one sense of honor in re this matter.
Overall I aligne my point of view with that of Beeswax et al ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
I suppose this is as good a time as any to come out as someone who took Communion for years before I was eventually baptized, which makes me kinda like Sarah Miles, but I didn't write a book about it.
I grew up in a thoroughly secular, areligious household where there was nary a hint of Jesus (except for Jesus Christ Superstar, which my parents liked, and was in fact how I learned the Gospel). I started in prep school, mostly because nobody told me not too. I started going to services at the school chapel on Sunday mornings (not required, very few students did). The church was officially "interdenominational," but "Episcopal style;" they used the BCP and the school minister was Episcopalian. After the main service, they celebrated the Eucharist in a back room, so went to that too. I don't know what sacramental theology they held, if any. I'm sure the minister could have guessed that I wasn't Christian, but he certainly never asked.
After that over the years, I found myself going to church, off and on, here and there, for some reason always Episcopalian, and if Communion was on offer I took it. By this point I had figured out that it was technically verboten, but it had become part of the church experience, so I kept on taking it. I wanted to go to church, and Communion was part of church, so I wanted that too. No one ever said boo to me. This went on for a couple of decades before I was eventually cajoled into a baptism class and found myself duly dunked and a card carrying Christian. I still can't explain it, but receiving the bread and the wine was part of my (long, drawn out) conversion experience. Somehow the liturgy (I didn't know the word) and the sacrament (only had the vaguest notion what that meant) drew me into the church.
Now that I am a card carrying Episcopalian, I find myself a bit torn. I know the rules, and the rationale behind them. I feel at least a little bit duty bound to follow the rules, and practicing open Communion technically violates the rubrics and the canons, so on that technical level, it makes me a little uncomfortable when people flout the rules. I have actually told a couple of non-Christian friends who've come with me to church, "Communion is for baptized people, so you're kinda not supposed to;" when they know that they're not interested anyway. Just this week I explained the protocol to a rabbinical student friend who came with me to a weeknight Mass, just to be sure there wasn't any confusion. But then given where I came from and how I got here, I can hardly insist on strict adherence to the rules. Whether breaking the rules is right or wrong, I know that in my case God worked on me through the breach.
The church where I was eventually baptized openly practices open Communion, which was relief, since I could go on receiving while taking the baptism class. It might have been a problem otherwise, because I might have had to admit that I had been breaking the rules; the priest had already seen me at the rail, and then would have seen me in the class. Every Sunday before the Eucharist they say something like, "Everyone is welcome to the Lord's table to receive Communion. We believe that sacraments are a gift from God, and not a possession of the Church to control or withhold. If the Spirit moves you to receive, let nothing hinder you. However, if you do receive, we hope you'll come back, so we can teach you our understanding of the meaning of the sacrament." To me, this makes about as much sense as the reasons for insisting that Communion is for the baptized only. I guess in the end I'd say that if the sacraments are a means of grace, whose to say that that God can't in some cases use the sacrament of the Eucharist before the sacrament of baptism to confer his grace, and in that case, who are we to get in the way?
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BlueOpal
Shipmate
# 15895
|
Posted
I have a question along a similar theme.
I was baptised Catholic as a child. I took my First Communion at seven, and was confirmed as a teenager (though in all honesty, I don't remember how much that was because I genuinely felt ready to confirm faith and how much it was just because that was what people my age in the parish were led to do. I don't really remember.)
Anyway, since then I went down the militant atheist route, then to agnostic indifference, then dabbled with Christianity, drifted back into atheism, back and forth and so on, and now I'm determined to keep myself on track and push onwards with my journey back to God.
BUT I'm disenchanted to say the least with Catholicism. I disagree with much of it. Some stuff makes me uneasy. I won't go into details, that's not what I'm here to ask. What I'm talking about is the fact that I will now take Communion anywhere except in a Catholic church.
Catholicism says only Catholics can receive in their churches, right? While other denominations just say you have to be baptised a Christian? Well I'm baptised a Catholic, but it means nothing to me. I haven't been to confession, I have plenty of hefty sins unabsolved by a priest (but, I believe, settled with Him upstairs) so by Catholic standards I shouldn't take Communion, baptised or not. Confession is one of the things I'm uncertain about with the denomination, so I will not be going to tell a priest my dirtiest darkest sins at any point. Therefore, Catholic doctrine says, I can't receive, despite being baptised...
Oh, it's all so confusing. Am I right to say that even though I personally think that as I'm baptised and am (at the moment) a believer in Christ, I should be able to receive. But I'm sort of avoiding offending their standards by not doing so.
Am I right to do that, or need I not worry?
(as an additional point, once I've secured myself in my faith a bit more over the next few months to a year, I plan to be rebaptised in a different denomination, this time a baptism I choose and believe in, in a denomination with which I'm entirely comfortable. Is that the right decision?)
--------------------
Well, I tell ye, there'll be no butter in Hell...
Posts: 111 | From: Rule Britannia | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
Oh, it's all so confusing. Am I right to say that even though I personally think that as I'm baptised and am (at the moment) a believer in Christ, I should be able to receive. But I'm sort of avoiding offending their standards by not doing so.
Am I right to do that, or need I not worry?
(as an additional point, once I've secured myself in my faith a bit more over the next few months to a year, I plan to be rebaptised in a different denomination, this time a baptism I choose and believe in, in a denomination with which I'm entirely comfortable. Is that the right decision?)
Well, all I can say is that when I returned to church later in life I refused to receive Communion for two years because I didn't believe in it. But then eventually I did (I was baptized as an infant).
So I'd add that if you don't feel you should receive communion in the Catholic church, then don't; follow your conscience on that.
I don't think I'd ever get rebaptized, though - my understanding and belief is that baptism is THE initiation into the Christian faith, and one is all that's required. But, perhaps your new denomination requires it for membership, so that's something only you can decide, really.
[ 15. September 2010, 21:50: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Didn't Wesley say the communion was a converting ordinance?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
BlueOpal,
If you don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, if you don't believe one needs to go to confession and be in a "state of grace" to receive, if you don't believe one needs to be in union with the local bishop who is in communion with the Pope, then don't receive.
If you want to talk with somebody about where you are spiritually right now, especially in regards to the Catholic Church, I'm sure your local priest wouldn't mind talking with you, wherever your current journey takes you.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
shamwari, shame on you!! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Look a few posts further up, lazybones!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Blue Opal:
(as an additional point, once I've secured myself in my faith a bit more over the next few months to a year, I plan to be rebaptised in a different denomination, this time a baptism I choose and believe in, in a denomination with which I'm entirely comfortable. Is that the right decision?)
Depends on what new denomination you join. If you join one that accepts believers baptism, they'll want you to be rebaptized. If you join one that practices infant baptism, not only will they not require you to be rebaptized, in most cases they will refuse to rebaptize you. You are not baptized into a particular denomination.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BlueOpal
Shipmate
# 15895
|
Posted
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.
It would mean a lot to me. It's not something I feel needs to be done, but something I really want to do. My childhood baptism was done because my Mum and her family are Catholics. I want to, when I feel ready, affirm my own faith and in many ways my first real entry into Christianity, because this is the first time I've come to a real conviction, really believed, and truly wanted to be a part of the faith.
Make sense?
Maybe I won't, though. I'm not sure. But I know that Catholicism isn't for me, so I won't be going to those Masses very often (only when I'm not in Uni and decide to accompany my Mum)
Once I'm back in uni in two weeks, I'm going to end up spending the term doing a denomination tour of the city's churches, just trying things out, seeing which one feels right.
Sorry, I'm probably threadjacking a bit.
--------------------
Well, I tell ye, there'll be no butter in Hell...
Posts: 111 | From: Rule Britannia | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Blue Opal,
That is all well and good. Really, it is; I am quite certain you are far from the only person who feels that way.
However, what Beeswax said is true: many church groups, esp. those for which infant baptism is the norm, would refuse to re-baptize you. Trust me, it is nothing personal. They will probably confirm you or perform some sort of rite of reception into the church. Not being re-baptized does not stop you from affirming your faith, nor does it stall your spiritual journey. You'll be in that church, same as anyone else. Like Beeswax said, you are not baptized into a particular denomination; you are baptized into Christ.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.
BlueOpal, I struggled with similar feelings when I wandered myself into an Episcopal church on 1 Advent.
I struggled with it for a couple months. My breakthrough moment came during the Easter Vigil liturgy, which included The Renewal of Baptismal Vows. I stood in the midst of the people of God and spoke the words that my godparents spoke for me many, many years before, and it hit me that yes, this is what I believe and what I will do, with God's help.
If you haven't wandered yourself into an Episcopal/Anglican church, I'd ask the leader of your church if there was a way to renew your baptismal vows. My $0.02.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
If you join one that practices infant baptism, not only will they not require you to be rebaptized, in most cases they will refuse to rebaptize you.
All depending on the circumstances of the previous baptism and the strictness of ones ecclesiology. Conditional baptism has also been used when there is a certain level of doubt.
Baptism is a "one time" event though.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
All depending on the circumstances of the previous baptism and the strictness of ones ecclesiology. Conditional baptism has also been used when there is a certain level of doubt.
Baptism is a "one time" event though.
Quite so. The caveat is always 'assuming the baptism is an otherwise-valid trinitarian baptism'.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
BlueOpal, the feelings you express are exactly why the Lutheran church (and many others) has adult confirmation. It gives you the opportunity to publicly declare yourself, to opt in, as it were, in as much or as little elaboration and celebration as you and your new congregation want to give it. Since it usually involves making the baptismal vows again (this time with your own voice, if you had sponsors do it before), you get that aspect. The only thing that's missing is the water. And I'm afraid I agree with everybody else up the thread, baptism (a REAL baptism, with the words and the water) is a non-repeatable action. Like being born. You can be adopted into as many families as many times as you like, but there's only ever one birth into the world--or into the Church Universal. Even our Baptist friends would agree--they are of the opinion that what they are doing is the first and only baptism, and that we infant baptizers didn't actually manage to pull it off in the first place. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[Deleted duplicate post.]
[ 16. September 2010, 01:49: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hosting
Getting back to the original topic of the thread:
Closed communion -- one aspect of which is restricting communion to the baptized -- is a bit of an ecclesiantical Dead Horse (see guidelines for the Dead Horses board here). Thus I'm moving the thread to that location, where you are welcome to continue the conversation.
Mamacita, Eccles Host
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.
It would mean a lot to me. It's not something I feel needs to be done, but something I really want to do. My childhood baptism was done because my Mum and her family are Catholics. I want to, when I feel ready, affirm my own faith and in many ways my first real entry into Christianity, because this is the first time I've come to a real conviction, really believed, and truly wanted to be a part of the faith.
Make sense?
Maybe I won't, though. I'm not sure. But I know that Catholicism isn't for me, so I won't be going to those Masses very often (only when I'm not in Uni and decide to accompany my Mum)
Once I'm back in uni in two weeks, I'm going to end up spending the term doing a denomination tour of the city's churches, just trying things out, seeing which one feels right.
Sorry, I'm probably threadjacking a bit.
I followed a similar course to you (although my family's Catholicism was much weaker - both my parents were atheists). I opted to be (re)baptised for the reasons you've given and have no regrets. Baptists are pretty much the only ones who will baptise you, although some evangelical Anglicans will perform a full immersion believer's baptism under the figleaf of re-affirming your baptismal vows. Baptist churches in the UK divide into roughly two groups - Baptist Union congregations, which tend to be open evangelical but can also be quite liberal, and independent Baptists, who tend to be very conservative. Independent charismatic churches are also usually 'baptist' on baptism. IMO at least some Baptist churches would be willing to baptise you without expecting you to join if you were happily settled in a non-baptist church. Good luck with the church hunt and apologies if I'm telling you lots of stuff you know already!
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I didn't consider myself "re-babaptised" and obviously neither did the Baptist Church, but no doubt several other churches don't think it's correct to baptise someone who as a baby has been "baptised" (what many of us associate with "dedication" and so call it that).
And in a baptist church in England, communion was permitted to people who had not been baptised, particularly to youg ones. Later on, most of them got baptised and them became members of the church.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Generally, I would count myself among the most liberal people I know. However, I can't agree to communion for the unbaptised. One is baptised into the body of Christ, and to me that is a huge part of the symbolism of the exercise: that God in Christ is feeding, in effect, his own body, and that we offer ourselves to feed and sustain each other. I simply don't see how someone who is not baptised can be part of this process.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
FooloftheShip,
What about the baptist belief that people must become Christians, be born-again, before they are allowed to get baptised? And because they are already christians before they actually get baptised, they may in varying baptist churches be given communion, as are people who have not been baptised and are still thinking about it, or not sure about it, or definitely anti getting baptised because they really do think they were baptised as babies and have that record...
[ 17. September 2010, 19:30: Message edited by: daisymay ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Who attended at the Last Supper? Was it the Twelve + Jesus? Or were the 72 (Luke 10:1) or at least some of them included? Were they all baptised? Maybe we cannot know.
But I wonder if Jesus would have turned someone away if they'd showed up? This was a Passover meal right? I thought they left an empty chair for Elijah. I won't argue that Elijah would have gotten communion at the last supper if he'd showed up, but I do wonder about the taking of a general good - communion in Christ's Body Once Broken - and re-imaging it as on a continuum, with entry level Christianity involving Baptism and the advanced only getting communion. Kind of like taking First Aid level 1 before you can take level 2.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
FooloftheShip,
What about the baptist belief that people must become Christians, be born-again, before they are allowed to get baptised? And because they are already christians before they actually get baptised, they may in varying baptist churches be given communion, as are people who have not been baptised and are still thinking about it, or not sure about it, or definitely anti getting baptised because they really do think they were baptised as babies and have that record...
That's where confirmation comes in, for churches who baptise in infancy. Some such churches insist on confirmation before communion - I was confirmed before I took communion - but to me, baptism is the key. I'm a sacramentalist to that extent. Sacraments are in any case only an invitation to the Holy Spirit; trying to instruct the Spirit is not a good idea. I know this can be an argument against the insistence on baptism, but there we are. It's hard to be totally self-consistent on these things. In fact, I think I may have changed my mind, at least in part. If "all are welcome in this place", do we put up a barrier? Does conversion of the heart count?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by BlueOpal:
With regards to the rebaptism thing; it's not just me trying to get out of Catholicism. My reasoning for wanting to be baptised again is that for the first time in my life I can truly say I WANT to grow in faith, I BELIEVE in God and in Jesus' sacrifice, and therefore baptism would serve the purpose I see it as meaning to serve; that is, showing one's entry into the Christian faith.
BlueOpal, I struggled with similar feelings when I wandered myself into an Episcopal church on 1 Advent.
I struggled with it for a couple months. My breakthrough moment came during the Easter Vigil liturgy, which included The Renewal of Baptismal Vows. I stood in the midst of the people of God and spoke the words that my godparents spoke for me many, many years before, and it hit me that yes, this is what I believe and what I will do, with God's help.
If you haven't wandered yourself into an Episcopal/Anglican church, I'd ask the leader of your church if there was a way to renew your baptismal vows. My $0.02.
After a recent infant baptism in my (Canadian) Anglican parish, several long-time members said to the rector something like 'That was wonderful! I wish I could be baptized again.' In response, he is now planning a service of re-affirmation of baptismal vows. It's similar to the Easter Vigil re-affirmation, but in this service, each 'candidate' would individually re-affirm their vows before the Bishop.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
As to children, I would go with the Orthodox practice; I generally view 'confirmation' as a sacrament searching for a theology.
The Orthodox also have the sacrament of 'confirmation.' They just usually do it at the same time as baptism.
If one is a validly 'pre-baptized' convert, one receives only the sacrament of 'confirmation,' as is also the practice of the Roman Catholic Church and, I believe, the Anglican communion. (If one intends to become a formal member, AFAIK.)
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
FooloftheShip,
What about the baptist belief that people must become Christians, be born-again, before they are allowed to get baptised?
Yes, what of it? I can't seem to find a Church Father who held to that belief.
[ 19. September 2010, 13:52: Message edited by: k-mann ]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
And why should a sola Scriptura Baptist (assuming that's what Daisymay is) need a Church Father?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I'm also not a supporter of a completely open table but I think there are ways to keep the canon in place, yet be hospitable to seekers.
Perhaps we could take a lesson from the Orthodox and reserve consecrated bread and wine for the baptized, but offer blessed (but non-consecrated bread) to the unbaptized, and issue an invitation for all to come forward and phrase it in a way that doesn't stigmatize the unbaptized but turns it into a warm welcome.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And why should a sola Scriptura Baptist (assuming that's what Daisymay is) need a Church Father?
I've never heard a Baptist minister/pastor being called a "Father"! And there were always discussions at member meetings about specific people being baptised and membered, and always a couple were always sent to interview a person who was asking to be baptised or memberd in a specific Baptist church.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Daisymay,
He was referring to the patristic witness. The 'Church Fathers' are the great theologians of the church, whose writings have shaped doctrine and practice for centuries. Their collective witness determines, at least in part, the collective tradition of the Christian church.
Of course, I can't see that this is terribly relevant, as Matt Black said, for a Baptist church.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Spurgeon, John Knox (and others) are also great theologians, never called "Father".
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
